Is there a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the charge "in a manner that violated defendant's rights"?

" ' "reasonable likelihood that the jury . . . understood the charge" in a manner that violated defendant's rights.' " (People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 476.) In context, we conclude that it is not reasonably likely that the jury would have divorced the requirement that defendant possess an item qualifying as a burglary toolthat the instructions have already specified must be either one of the enumerated items that are designed to gain access to property or similar to the enumerated itemswith defendant's intent to use that tool to gain access to property.